What do people currently think about .222 Remington?

[scrumbag]

I've never understood the logic. I can see the point with reds. Highland reds are significantly smaller than reds in southern England and different permitted calibres are appropriate for that species, but it doesn't follow that the same applies to Roe. A Roe in England is absolutely no different from a Scottish Roe and if .220 is good enough in Scotland (which is undoubtedly is) it's good in the rest of the country.

Eh? There is no real difference between the rules on red deer in England and Scotland? Did I miss something?

 

[Sea trout]

I have just bought a .222 and whilst I haven’t used it on anytjing with a pulse (yet) I would say on the range it is fantastic. In terms of ammo, almost everywhere stocks it but be prepared to place a order if there is something specific you want. For the range there is some ammo as cheap as £13 a box!

 

[Sea trout]

I've never understood the logic. I can see the point with reds. Highland reds are significantly smaller than reds in southern England and different permitted calibres are appropriate for that species, but it doesn't follow that the same applies to Roe. A Roe in England is absolutely no different from a Scottish Roe and if .220 is good enough in Scotland (which is undoubtedly is) it's good in the rest of the country.

It takes a much bigger bullet to slay a mighty English roe

 

[Kalahari]

Eh? There is no real difference between the rules on red deer in England and Scotland? Did I miss something?

Not much, but in Scotland you do need a 243 (if you use one) that will stabilise 100gr and some don't.

David.

 

[Sonicdmb73]

Eh? There is no real difference between the rules on red deer in England and Scotland? Did I miss something?

There’s a difference in how the legislation is applied. As in the 100 grain minimum in Scotland. As opposed to the speed energy in England and Wales. But that would in my opinion imply they think that you need larger bullets for Red and Fallow in Scotland than the same animals a few miles south.
In the case of many 243’s I believe it comprises accuracy with the 100gn min.

 

[scrumbag]

Kalahari and Sonic.

I know, what I don't understand is the way Finch's post reads, you can get way with a smaller calibre on reds in Scotland than England. Which isn't true..?

 

[User00035]

I didn't word it very well. the calibre difference applies to Roes not reds. Sonic puts it better: the rules are interpreted differently in Scotland than in England/Wales. Ostensibly, as far as I'm aware, historically the lack of uniformity in the rules on calibres, weights and energy levels etc between Scotland and England/Wales has been because highland and lowland reds are significantly different in size, hence Scottish deer species in general have come to treated differently in regulatory terms. My main point is that lowland species are no different either side of the border and so the regulations on weights, energy calibres etc, should be standardised across the UK.

 

[Kalahari]

Kalahari and Sonic.

I know, what I don't understand is the way Finch's post reads, you can get way with a smaller calibre on reds in Scotland than England. Which isn't true..?

I ken fine you ken fine. Just trying to clear the situation a bit further.

David.

PS There is still a part of me which says that if you measure a 243 barrel properly it is illegally small under the letter of the law!

 

[scrumbag]

I ken fine you ken fine. Just trying to clear the situation a bit further.

David.

PS There is still a part of me which says that if you measure a 243 barrel properly it is illegally small under the letter of the law!

That’s dead right. And if you look at the Northern Irish legislation the minimum is corrected from .240” to .236 to allow 243W in

 

[Kalahari]

That’s dead right. And if you look at the Northern Irish legislation the minimum is corrected from .240” to .236 to allow 243W in

IMO shouldn't allow the 243 in! It was designed a fast flat shooting varmint round, which it is very good at.

David.

 

[Sonicdmb73]

IMO shouldn't allow the 243 in! It was designed a fast flat shooting varmint round, which it is very good at.

David.

Not strictly true, it was the Remington 6mm that was an out and out varmint rifle.
Winchester always meant the 243 as an all rounder. Hence the demise of 6mm Rem.
The biggest problem with 243 is suitable bullet choice. The Scottish Law handicaps you from the get go.

 

[Freeforester]

How much is nostalgia worth to you ? .223 will do everything the .222 will do, and can handle heavier bullets if required (any minor accuracy advantage from the .222 will be irrelevent in this use )

True, the .222 makes much less carcass damage than the .223, subject to using a suitable projectile in both; it's a speed thing.

 

[scrumbag]

Not strictly true, it was the Remington 6mm that was an out and out varmint rifle.
Winchester always meant the 243 as an all rounder. Hence the demise of 6mm Rem.
The biggest problem with 243 is suitable bullet choice. The Scottish Law handicaps you from the get go.

There is some truth in that. Way back in the day, Remmington shoe horned the .257 Roberts and the 6 mm rem (Same x57 parent case) into rifles that had shorter magazine boxes than would allow the full range of heavy bullets (~120 and ~100 gr) in those chamberings (Also buggered the twist rates as well) so some what stunted those chamberings. Ruddy big green...

Back on topic: .222 great little round, get one and enjoy it!

 

[Sonicdmb73]

There is some truth in that. Way back in the day, Remmington shoe horned the .257 Roberts and the 6 mm rem (Same x57 parent case) into rifles that had shorter magazine boxes than would allow the full range of heavy bullets (~120 and ~100 gr) in those chamberings (Also buggered the twist rates as well) so some what stunted those chamberings. Ruddy big green...

Back on topic: .222 great little round, get one and enjoy it!

I agree a 222 in an appropriate size rifle is a joy to use.
Mine has a varmint profile barrel about 21” iirc and is probably lighter. Than my 243 without it’s scope or moderator.
I really don’t see why when they didn’t include Roe when they allowed it for CWD and Muntjac.
You can buy suitable bullets for deer both factory and to reload. You’re not losing much real world over a 223. However it’s known to be inherently accurate and easy to load for.
The fact everyone (well nearly) wants a 223 just means that you pay less for a 222.

 

[kennyc]

True, the .222 makes much less carcass damage than the .223, subject to using a suitable projectile in both; it's a speed thing.

I can't see that, if you are reloading then either can be adjusted to whatever speed you want for the bullet , so speed is not a relevant difference, now if you are talking about factory ammo, then maybe, but for a given bullet weight I can't see there would be much difference ?

 

[scrumbag]

I agree a 222 in an appropriate size rifle is a joy to use.
Mine has a varmint profile barrel about 21” iirc and is probably lighter. Than my 243 without it’s scope or moderator.
I really don’t see why when they didn’t include Roe when they allowed it for CWD and Muntjac.
You can buy suitable bullets for deer both factory and to reload. You’re not losing much real world over a 223. However it’s known to be inherently accurate and easy to load for.
The fact everyone (well nearly) wants a 223 just means that you pay less for a 222.

Is true. I run the 62gr Federal Fusion through my .223 Rem and it's great. I'd have no issues using it on a roe deer

 

[Klenchblaize]

Where do you draw the line? The 22 Hornet makes a dandy roe rifle for sheltered woodland stalking but I wouldn't use it on the open Hill for roe.

K

 

[Sinistral]

I agree a 222 in an appropriate size rifle is a joy to use.
Mine has a varmint profile barrel about 21” iirc and is probably lighter. Than my 243 without it’s scope or moderator.
I really don’t see why when they didn’t include Roe when they allowed it for CWD and Muntjac.
You can buy suitable bullets for deer both factory and to reload. You’re not losing much real world over a 223. However it’s known to be inherently accurate and easy to load for.
The fact everyone (well nearly) wants a 223 just means that you pay less for a 222.

This all dates from 12 years ago. As my FAC Conditions were affected I remember much of the debate about the use of .22 centrefires in E&W.

Part of the reason why Muntjac/CWD were included in the quarry list but Roe Deer excluded was the use of delegated legislation to do it.

The changes to ‘permitted calibres’ were enacted as an amendment to Section 4.2(a) of the Deer Act 1991 by a fast-track SI entitled the Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007. A lot of other reforms were introduced by this RRO within a single package, rather than a series of piecemeal amendments under various Deer Acts by the D of Ag.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/article/3/made

All RRO’s are subject to scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee, and the proposals from each government department assessed against a series of standard tests. The SC members are generalists who evaluate RRO’s put forward by any government department on any subject. From way back this is the SC 4th Report with the relevant bit below ….

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdereg/411/41102.htm


PERMIT THE USE OF .22 CENTRE FIRE RIFLES WITH MUZZLE ENERGY OF AT LEAST 1,356 JOULES AND SPECIFIED AMMUNITION FOR KILLING CHINESE WATER DEER, MUNTJAC DEER OR ROE DEER (PROPOSAL A, ARTICLE 3(4))

48. Since the time the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act have been in force, smaller species of deer have become well-established in England and Wales. The Department considers that evidence is available to show that a firearm smaller than that currently permitted is effective for killing these smaller species. In particular, the Explanatory Statement argues that the law in Scotland permits roe deer to be killed with the proposed smaller weaponry with no evidence of cruelty or ineffectiveness and both Chinese water deer and muntjac deer are smaller than roe deer and should therefore also be effectively killed by such means.

49. We took note of the expert opinion supplied on this question during the consultation on the proposals. The Department recorded that the Deer Commission for Scotland has no concern with the use of the suggested calibre of gun in Scotland for killing deer of the kinds at issue. However, Natural England were not prepared to provide a view on the safety of the proposal in respect of roe deer due to lack of available evidence, although they were content with the proposal in respect of the other two species. Furthermore, the RSPCA was concerned about the proposal in respect of roe deer because of a lack of evidence that animal welfare would not be compromised and "believed that it is still open to question as to whether the necessary protection for roe deer will be maintained". We asked the Department specifically to comment on the views of Natural England and the RSPCA.

50. In response the Department referred to the long practice of shooting smaller species of deer, including roe deer as the largest of these smaller species in Scotland, with the calibre of guns which are the subject of the proposal.[15] Scottish Natural Heritage and the SSPCA were said to have made no formal representations to the Deer Commission for Scotland about the practice.

51. The Department noted, correctly, that neither Natural England or the RSPCA expressed their concern in the form of an objection to this element of the proposal. Both these key bodies had been unable to say, on the basis of the evidence, that animal welfare would not be prejudiced. The majority of opinion as tested in the consultation was in favour of the proposal. However, the foundation of the Department's reason for proceeding with the proposal despite the concern expressed by the RSPCA and Natural England was stated to be "the long standing situation in Scotland with respect to roe deer".[16]

52. We consider this to be a difficult issue, although it constitutes a relatively minor part of the proposal. We note carefully that the effect of the proposal would be to align the law in England and Wales with the law in Scotland and we understand that there would be merits in this. Conversely, we must also note that evidence has not been presented to demonstrate conclusively and to the satisfaction of informed opinion that shooting of roe deer as proposed would not constitute a risk to animal welfare. The test we are required to measure the proposal against is whether a necessary protection would be lost. Sources of expert opinion canvassed during the consultation were unwilling to say that necessary protection would not be lost in respect of the shooting of roe deer, although there was not the same level of concern about Chinese water deer and muntjac deer.[17] In the absence of clear evidence about roe deer we do not feel able to offer the House the certainty on this issue which Natural England and the RSPCA have felt themselves unable to give in their comments on the matter.

53. We recommend that the reference to roe deer be excluded from article 3(4) of the proposed Order before it is laid in draft before the House.



My previous FAC’s, for which scottish land evidence was required, show a separate Condition permitting use of my .222 “for Roe Deer as prescribed under the Deer (Firearms etc.)(Scotland) Order 1985”. This has been superseded by AOLQ now.

I used my .222 in the borders for 3 years, and it accounted for about 20 roe. It’s a Heym SR40 Lefthand which I love. One day a doe hit squarely bounded off into the cover of dense Sitka & got away, so .243 has been my minimum for Scotland since.

 

[User00035]

So basically the Deer Commission for Scotland says .220 is OK for Roe. Natural England and the RSPCA (meh..) say it isn't. And that's the sole basis for our irrational disjointed regulation.
Since when have Natural England or the RSPCA been "experts" on anything except hiding political lobbying behind charitable status or milking quango budgets underwritten by the taxpayer?

 

[jimbo1984]

This all dates from 12 years ago. As my FAC Conditions were affected I remember much of the debate about the use of .22 centrefires in E&W.

Part of the reason why Muntjac/CWD were included in the quarry list but Roe Deer excluded was the use of delegated legislation to do it.

The changes to ‘permitted calibres’ were enacted as an amendment to Section 4.2(a) of the Deer Act 1991 by a fast-track SI entitled the Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007. A lot of other reforms were introduced by this RRO within a single package, rather than a series of piecemeal amendments under various Deer Acts by the D of Ag.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/article/3/made

All RRO’s are subject to scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee, and the proposals from each government department assessed against a series of standard tests. The SC members are generalists who evaluate RRO’s put forward by any government department on any subject. From way back this is the SC 4th Report with the relevant bit below ….

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdereg/411/41102.htm


PERMIT THE USE OF .22 CENTRE FIRE RIFLES WITH MUZZLE ENERGY OF AT LEAST 1,356 JOULES AND SPECIFIED AMMUNITION FOR KILLING CHINESE WATER DEER, MUNTJAC DEER OR ROE DEER (PROPOSAL A, ARTICLE 3(4))

48. Since the time the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act have been in force, smaller species of deer have become well-established in England and Wales. The Department considers that evidence is available to show that a firearm smaller than that currently permitted is effective for killing these smaller species. In particular, the Explanatory Statement argues that the law in Scotland permits roe deer to be killed with the proposed smaller weaponry with no evidence of cruelty or ineffectiveness and both Chinese water deer and muntjac deer are smaller than roe deer and should therefore also be effectively killed by such means.

49. We took note of the expert opinion supplied on this question during the consultation on the proposals. The Department recorded that the Deer Commission for Scotland has no concern with the use of the suggested calibre of gun in Scotland for killing deer of the kinds at issue. However, Natural England were not prepared to provide a view on the safety of the proposal in respect of roe deer due to lack of available evidence, although they were content with the proposal in respect of the other two species. Furthermore, the RSPCA was concerned about the proposal in respect of roe deer because of a lack of evidence that animal welfare would not be compromised and "believed that it is still open to question as to whether the necessary protection for roe deer will be maintained". We asked the Department specifically to comment on the views of Natural England and the RSPCA.

50. In response the Department referred to the long practice of shooting smaller species of deer, including roe deer as the largest of these smaller species in Scotland, with the calibre of guns which are the subject of the proposal.[15] Scottish Natural Heritage and the SSPCA were said to have made no formal representations to the Deer Commission for Scotland about the practice.

51. The Department noted, correctly, that neither Natural England or the RSPCA expressed their concern in the form of an objection to this element of the proposal. Both these key bodies had been unable to say, on the basis of the evidence, that animal welfare would not be prejudiced. The majority of opinion as tested in the consultation was in favour of the proposal. However, the foundation of the Department's reason for proceeding with the proposal despite the concern expressed by the RSPCA and Natural England was stated to be "the long standing situation in Scotland with respect to roe deer".[16]

52. We consider this to be a difficult issue, although it constitutes a relatively minor part of the proposal. We note carefully that the effect of the proposal would be to align the law in England and Wales with the law in Scotland and we understand that there would be merits in this. Conversely, we must also note that evidence has not been presented to demonstrate conclusively and to the satisfaction of informed opinion that shooting of roe deer as proposed would not constitute a risk to animal welfare. The test we are required to measure the proposal against is whether a necessary protection would be lost. Sources of expert opinion canvassed during the consultation were unwilling to say that necessary protection would not be lost in respect of the shooting of roe deer, although there was not the same level of concern about Chinese water deer and muntjac deer.[17] In the absence of clear evidence about roe deer we do not feel able to offer the House the certainty on this issue which Natural England and the RSPCA have felt themselves unable to give in their comments on the matter.

53. We recommend that the reference to roe deer be excluded from article 3(4) of the proposed Order before it is laid in draft before the House.



My previous FAC’s, for which scottish land evidence was required, show a separate Condition permitting use of my .222 “for Roe Deer as prescribed under the Deer (Firearms etc.)(Scotland) Order 1985”. This has been superseded by AOLQ now.

I used my .222 in the borders for 3 years, and it accounted for about 20 roe. It’s a Heym SR40 Lefthand which I love. One day a doe hit squarely bounded off into the cover of dense Sitka & got away, so .243 has been my minimum for Scotland since.

Sorry but I just read “ a doe hit squarely bounced off and got away “?? Surely if it got away you’ve no idea if your shot was spot on ??